Hey, there! Log in / Register

Supreme Court to consider constitutionality of Massachusetts buffer zone around abortion clinics

Associated Press reports the court will consider whether a law that bans anti-abortion activists from getting within 35 feet of people entering clinics violates their First Amendment rights.

In January, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the law, again, saying no "creative recalibration of First Amendment principles" would trump the privacy rights of clinic patients and that the Massachusetts law was legal because it was targeted at all people, not just screaming protesters with large photos of dead fetuses.

Neighborhoods: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

...and go camp out in front of their houses.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't think they'd like that at all.

up
Voting closed 0

How'd you like it if people camped out in front of your place of residence because they didn't like your position on whatever? Think about that!

up
Voting closed 0

It's not like we still can't hear them talking/yelling in front of the door, so it really doesn't at all violate the first amendment. In reality, the buffer zone circle is only about 10-15 feet from the entrance anyway, at least outside the Boston clinic. I think the entire area blocked off is 35 feet, but they definitely get closer than 35 feet to the actual entrance.

up
Voting closed 0

The first amendment doesn't mean you can express yourself wherever the hell you want. It seems legit that any business could ask that people doing something not affiliated with the business move to somewhere that's not right in front of the door all up in people's grills.

I'm curious though why Boston doesn't enact/enforce a law that you have to keep moving when on public sidewalks. Anyone know?

up
Voting closed 0

It was used extensively against the Occupy folks.

Maybe the cops are just taking pity on the superannuated people who show up at anti-abortion protests in these parts.

In any case, do take a look at the appeals-court ruling linked from the earlier story I did (liked in the original post). It's interesting and entertaining on a number of fronts (the antis tried using Citizens United as part of their argument, when, as the court noted, that decision specifically used anti-abortion protests as an example of speech that could be limited).

up
Voting closed 0

I believe the law is that you can't "impede" traffic on the sidewalk. If you're part of a group taking up too much space (Occupy) or want to setup a table to hand out flyers (some guy in Copley, I recall), then they act to enforce it. As long as you're loosely organized, out of the main flow and not setting up chairs/tables, I don't believe the law necessarily applies.

At the PP near Packard's Corner, they tend to hang out close to the curb (plenty of room around them) and have posters at most (no chairs/tables). So, I don't think they violate the sidewalk law.

up
Voting closed 0

The protesters were awful. The second I stepped out of the buffer zone, they would be in my face with signs. They followed me (then 19-years-old) to my car while asking how much I was paid to kill babies all day (I was an unpaid intern working in the Marketing dept). This law is absolutely necessary and I'm terrified to think of going to the clinic without it.

up
Voting closed 0

Do they also harass delivery personal, such as UPS drivers and such?

up
Voting closed 0

I've often thought that if I had a lot of money, I'd pay to renovate their facility or build them a new one with parking, expansive front yard, etc. all on private property. Because whut.

up
Voting closed 0

They followed me (then 19-years-old) to my car while asking how much I was paid to kill babies all day (I was an unpaid intern working in the Marketing dept).

Lovely. Pity that at 19 you probably were afraid to yell back, "Nothing, I do it for free!"

up
Voting closed 0

"...Adopt the kid or shut the (expletive) up."

up
Voting closed 0

As much as I like the general STFU sentiment of this comment, adoption is not a solution to a situation where a woman does not want to continue to be pregnant and or/give birth (or it would harm her, etc.) Adoption is a solution to when a woman feels she would like to give birth but does not wish to be a parent. Or when the state decides that a legal parent is no longer a fit legal parent, etc.

The bumper stickers need to say something more like "unless you want me to transplant all the undesired pregnancy embryos into your box or other suitable cavity, STFU."

(Or, like, unless you have a solution to eliminating rape, incest, changes in family situation, illness, fetal anomalies, risk to mother's life, poverty, birth control failure, STFU.)

up
Voting closed 0

We weren't allowed to say anything to them- you have to sign a contract

up
Voting closed 0

As an employee, you sign paperwork that says you won't say anything back to them. Otherwise, that's exactly what I would have said.

up
Voting closed 0

Judging by the bulletproof security checkpoint and armed security guard inside Planned Parenthood, I'd say the organization is more concerned about the protesters' second amendment rights.

up
Voting closed 0

Given some of the horrific events that've occurred in and/or around reproduction rights clinics (Do the Salvi case or the Dr. George Tiller case come to mind, anybody?) it's necessary to put bullet-proof security checkpoints and armed security guards inside Planned Parenthood. It's too risky not to, if one gets the drift.

I also might add that the law not allowing anti-abortionists to block clinics or to get closer than 35 feet away from those clinics, such as Planned Parenthood, etc., are necessary for the protection of the rights of the patients and workers in such clinics not to have their rights to make decisions about what they do with their bodies or their money, etc, interfered with.

up
Voting closed 0